Posted
by
Zonkon Thursday November 16, 2006 @05:24PM
from the tit-for-tat dept.

Red Flayer writes "Slate Magazine reports that the US's recent actions to clarify restrictions of on-line gambling may have some very important unintended consequences. Antigua has challenged the legitimacy of the US's partial restrictions under the WTO, claiming that the laws represent a free trade infringement. What is so significant about this is that Antigua would be fully justified (and I imagine, would get a lot of support from other nations) in ignoring the US's patent and trademark laws. Freetrade.org has a more in-depth analysis (albeit with a predetermined opinion on the topic). Pre-register now for your copy of Antiguasoft Vista."

Great idea, unless you were expecting to run this somewhere that did still respect US copyright laws and agreements.

Actually, I think it is not so simple. US copyright law allows you, as the owner of a legally made copy to run the s/w. Since the copy would legally made in Antigua, surely, one would have the right to use it under copyright law.

Patents might be different, since patent law forbids the importation of products that violate US patents.

Nope, still a violation of copyright law. The US would still regard it as counterfit anywhere outside of Antigua and importation would still be illegal. Making it outside of the US is still a violation of US copyright law. On the other hand, it would be terribly difficult to police. The Antiguans would be free to set up a web site where anyone could download the latest from hollywood without fear of being shutdown. (just a fear of running out of bandwidth). Think of it as sailing out to international

Yes, the US *could* either try (1) to make imports from Antigua illegal, or (2) to try to impose tariffs on such goods.

In any case, Antigua can still sell to other countries. Also, the law or the tariff can come under judgement from the WTO again -- and, again, the US would lose.

And continue to ignore the WTO (Canada and the softwood lumber dispute -- its happened before)

Yes, the WTO may be seen as "toothless" by the US, but understand that Europe and China could simply aquire Microsoft/Disney/... goods through Antigua. These companies would be hurthing bad... and the hurting will be put back into policy. Soften up on the gambling; that's Antigua's livelyhood. Or, eliminate on-line gambling. Take your pick, US, you can't have both.

But the problem is that the US hasn't banned internet gambling. It has only banned some internet gambling, including all internet gambling outside the USA. If all internet gambling were banned, the US could cry 'moral grounds' and the problem would go away. But since they aren't, and instead only allow US-based internet gambling...

Also, keep in mind that Nevada just approved mobile gaming, which means on your cellphone. Arguing that internet gambling and gambling in a casino are different is a legitimate argument. Arguing that mobile gambling and internet gambling (normally we'd call all this "Gaming" but I realize that this is slashdot so I'm altering my terminology) are substantially different is laughable to say the least.

The fact that the USA allows casinos is irrelevent. Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded. So, the US allows internet gambling right now. You just have to base it in the USA. That's a clear violation of trade treaties.They are not arguing that internet gambling and casino gambling are the same thing. No need: the USA has legal internet gambling sites that they are protecting, in direct v

Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded. So, the US allows internet gambling right now. You just have to base it in the USA. That's a clear violation of trade treaties.

I realize what you're saying. I'm quite aware of what the US allows in the way of gaming - I work in a Tribal casino in northern California. The US might allow internet gambling, but no state allows it.

The fact that the USA allows casinos is irrelevent. Read the article, the problem is that the US allows in-state, horse-racing, and gambling sites based on Native American reservations to operated unimpeded.

There's not really much the US can do to prevent Indian gaming as long as the casinoes are on reservation. None of the treaties signed between Indian tribes and the US government, of which the US has broken a bunch already, bars tribes from having casinoes.

It can do exactly as much about them as it can about gaming in Antigua: prohibit them from offering gambling online to US citizens. Since it doesn't, Antigua can claim that the laws prohibiting them from offering such sites are only to protect the sites that are allowed to operate.

The "lefties" banned online gambling in washington state... but then the gambliing commission seems to be a bunch of micromanaging wack jobs here... for example we're legally required to call the police before holding a raffle for a non-profit org.

This is true for native reservation casinos, but I'm not sure it applies to casinos within regular land. Vegas, for example, answers mostly to the Nevada gaming commission, not the feds.

Though, that said, I have to say that I personally think the real reason the government now forbids online gambling is because they don't get the tax revenue from it.

I don't think you understand how our government works. It doesn't act in the best interests of the government, per se, but in the best interests of the individuals running it. The government is happy to give away billions in subsidies if it means they get a few hundred grand donated to the party campaign fund.

If you've been following the news maybe you've heard about the recent lobbying scandal where a lobbyist who works for many different groups including a consortium of casinos was busted for bribing members of congress. Hmmm, what could those casinos be bribing members of congress to do? What is it they might want? Maybe outlawing the competition?

It isn't exactly that cut and dry. But I like the inuendos leading to coruption. I added just enough mysterious flaver to start a conspiracy.But only the truley foolish will follow the conspiracy. You see, It is illegal to rig gambling in the houses faover on a federal level. State gaming commisions are chartered to support or enforce his idea. They operate with federal autority even though they are a state organizations. The nevada gaming commishion can call the FBI into play at any time and even access ot

So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards.

The subject bar contains the keywords, "buyer beware". As long as a third party isn't getting harmed something should not be made illegal. Especially here in the USA which is supposed to be the land of the f

I think you just shot down your own argument at the very end:"So online gambling, If we can guarentee a fair game, good. If we cannot - bad. Over seas online gambling- outside our ability to even think about checking on it- shouldn't be allowed. Then we can say "buyer beware" without a bunch of "Wha..I lost my home"ers complaining they were cheated afterwards."

buyer beware. The government cannot and SHOULD not try to protect people from stupidity. People are stupid. I'm stupid and you're stupid. We do stupi

Yes, because an online casino may be in another country, where we have zero legal authority to regulate it. If it's domestic, then states, towns, counties, or the entire country can decide whether to allow gambling. (People can always travel to a casino, but the less convenient such travel is, the less likely people are to do it.) We can also do things like impose regulations to prohibit casino-side cheating and so on.

Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

The reason Antigua won was because the US laws are not consistent. US was claiming a "moral exemption" but only transactions to offshore casinos were being regulated. Antigua's argument, which the WTO agreed with, was that if you claim the moral exemption, you have to be consistent, across the board.

If Saudi Arabia only allowed porn from Saudi websites but made Dutch porn illegal, you might have an argument. But if SA decides to ban all porn, the WTO is OK with that too.

Read the fricking article next time. Someone with such a low slashdot ID as you should know better.

That's what the issue is... according to TFA, that's the argument the US is trying to use: "We have a right to protect the morality of our citizens."

What Antigua is saying, however, is that online gambling is NOT restricted in the US (i.e. betting on horse races, state lotteries, etc. are all legal) and that to ban online gambling by foreign countries while still allowing local companies the right to let people bet online is an unfair restriction of trade. I tend to agree with Antigua, and the WTO has as

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US. However, it is still an abuse of our right to run our affiars amongst ourselves the way we see fit. Next these jokers will tell Saudi Arabia that the Dutch should be free to export porn there.

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

The US already uses the WTO to blugeon other nations. They tend to ignore any incovenient rulings against them though. But they freely use it to threaaten others. See the soft wood lumber deal with canada.

the best example is the Pirate Bay in Sweden!!!! The Swedish laws allow the Pirate Bay, but only barely. The US went to their country and beat their govt over the head with the WTO agreement for something the Swedes found "morally allowable"... that's a fair and equal comparison to what the An-who-gians are claiming.

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

Indeed it isn't - nor would it be a WTO violation. The problem, as I understand the WTO argument, is that the US _does_ allow online gambling but only for US companies. That breaks WTO rules just like if the US banned the sale of non-US oranges - the US is still free to ban the sale of oranges altogether.

The interesting thing here is that Antigua is so small it can't recover its damages from the US in the usual fashion, so it is asking for the novel relief of being granted the right to copy US-produced IP without paying the usual royalties. Since global enforcement of copyright relies on similar mutual agreement to WTO (might even come under WTO?), this might even work.

So India would be consistent in banning US agricultural products then? Maybe you didn't know or don't recall but the WTO trade talks during the summer fell apart because the US and EU refused to stop subsidizing their agribusinesses. Because of this refusal India walked out. Indian farmers can't compete with US or EU farmers who get paid billions of dollars and Euros and then are able to sale food cheaper than it costs to grow. Indian farmers are committing suicide by the thousands because they can't compete in such a lopsided market. Basically the same is happening in Mexico because of NAFTA. Big UG agrobusinesses are able to export corn to Mexico below prices Mexican farmers can grow corn thus causing Mexicans to "illegally immigrate" to the US.

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US.

And Bush violated Iraq's national sovereignty by invading Iraq and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Also it's trying to vilate many other countries sovereignty by trying to force them to accept US exports while restricting their exports to the US.

It's NOT a violation of the notion of free trade to ban or restrict items from other countries that are ALREADY banned or restricted domestically.

It's incredibly funny that the WTO is being used to abuse the sovereignty of the US.

Er, we gave up that little bit of "sovereignty" when we joined the WTO. Treaties are the law of the land, according to the Constitution. The WTO isn't being used to abuse us; the whole point of treaties is that we give up something in exchange for getting something from the other signatories.

Of course, for much the same reasons, a lot of countries wish to violate US patents on drugs.

Actually there is a clause in the WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, agreements that allow countries such as South Africa to make or import generic drugs in cases where a lot of doses of drugs are needed to treat a bunch of people who otherwise couldn't afford the drug.

FTFA if piracy is indeed a breeding ground for money laundering and terrorist operations...

Huh, I wasn't aware that piracy was actually used as a legitimate front for laundering money - and since it isn't a legitimate business, why not just nab the money launderers on IP infringement charges? I'm also suprised that terrorists are the ones making money by selling infringing media to support their attacks on the western world - it seems that most of the cash in piracy is the simple loss of revenue through supression of sales of new material.

Two drawbacks of retaliating through intellectual property rights may give pause to Antigua and Barbuda. First, if piracy is indeed a breeding ground for money laundering and terrorist operations, then encouraging the development of a safe haven for intellectual property rights violators may not be in Antigua and Barbuda's interests. Second, Antigua and Barbuda may decide that suspending its obligation to protect the intellectual property rights of American companies is not in its trading interests.

Maybe you misunderstand -- the US can't nab the launderers on IP charges if they are in Antigua, short of invading.

it seems that most of the cash in piracy is the simple loss of revenue through supression of sales of new material.

No, most of the cash in piracy is from selling bootlegged material. What you are describing is potential losses by the IP holders.

The lottery is no different from any other gambling. There are odds, you know the odds, there is money, you spend the money. The people you give the money to thank you. Someone will definitely win a chunk of that money, but it probably won't be you. Gaming in a casino gives you better odds to win something - the lottery however offers larger payouts than casinos do. Typically you won't find any way to win more than one million at a time in a casino although I guess some of the guaranteed multi-site promotions are running higher than that.

I haven't looked at the link yet but my problem with the lottery was always that the funds would be used for education. Then of course the funds go into a general fund of which education gets a percentage. If the funds were in a (god help me here) "lock box", I would probably support it more. I think maybe the lottery money should go for the people who spend all thier money on the lottery. The stupid people.Of course I get pissed because Georgia follows the same hipocracy of outlawing gambling while having

"Aye hen, if it weren't for the cigarettes and the horses, we wouldn't be able to afford to stay on social security".

Recently, Scotland passed legislation to ban smoking from inside public places. The side effect was that the bingo halls started closing down, as the players who normally spent all their winnings on the slot machines now rushed outside for a smoke, then decided to go home rather than back inside.

Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause. (Congress is constitutionally authorized to regulate interstate commerce, so they throw some fiction about same into almost every bill they think might be a little dodgy. Works, too, except where they're trying to do something explicitly forbidden to them by the constitution.)

Probably not, but it's amazing what the Supreme Court has let Congress get away with under the coloring of the interstate commerce clause.

When the Supremes allows Congress to make regulations affecting food grown by a farmer on his own land and eaten in his own house, they gutted the limitations on the federal government's power. Look also at the recent decision about CA's medicinal marijuana law -- essentially what they said was that the Feds could control it because they have a legitimate interest in so doing -- do they understand the concept of a circular argument?

To be fair that wasn't really what they said. They said that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating interstate commerce, in this case the drug trade. The court said that the "market" for marijuana isn't limited to one state and therefore to allow a state to legalize it for any reason would affect that interstate marijuana market. Its not a circular argument; its just a huge stretch of logic. Or as some might say, dumb.

The court said that the "market" for marijuana isn't limited to one state and therefore to allow a state to legalize it for any reason would affect that interstate marijuana market.

A strict reading of the constitution shows that the Feds are allowed to regulate "Commerce...among the several States," in other words, actual interstate commerce and not "anything that affects interstate commerce." Fundamentally, it is hard to think of any activity that does not affect some kind of interstate commerce, givi

Actually, we don't allow online gambling. We allow mobile gambling in Nevada - at least, I think that finally passed - but you are not permitted to run an online gambling site from within the US. Mobile gambling is different only in that you are required (legally) to show up and sign up, so the idea is that it's kept within the state that way. From there you are free to play video keno on your cellphone in the bathroom.

Actually you can gamble online for horse racing. Also, the law that really bans internet gambling was the wire act which would technically allow you to set up an online casino in one state and only accept bets from people in that state.

Oddly enough the supreme court refused to overturn a lower court ruling that the wire act only applies to telephone betting on sporting events. So online casino's techincally were not illegal and probably still aren't given the wooliness of the wording in the new act.

Under the recent (and previous) law, interstate gambling on horse races is legal and Intrastate gambling on anything your state chooses to allow is also legal. So It's hard to argue that we permit no online gambling which is exactly what the US Government tried to tell the WTO.

The US Government didn't outlaw gambling. They outlawed the method of monetary transfer to gaming sites. While it's a very fine difference, it is a difference nonetheless. They couldn't outlaw gambling because it's a state decided issue (i.e. Nevada & Jersey). The law's intended consequence was to *effectively* ban on-line gambling because US citizens have no way to get funds to/from those sites. They knew they couldn't outlaw gambling so they took away the foundation, the money.

One of the main problems with the way US laws are passed is the ability to slip things like this in to a larger bill that noone would dare vote 'no' on since it would be political suicide and very few politicians have the balls to stand up on issues like this.

Sen. Jones: "Don't re-elect Sen. Smith. He voted 'no' on the bill that would outlaw killing babies"
Sen. Smith: "I voted no because someone slipped in an unrelated ammendment banning sending money to gambling sites"
Sen. Jones: "But you still voted 'no' to outlawing killing babies! Sen. Smith thinks that babies should be killed on sight!"

While the above example is extreme, it represents the mentality of politicians in Washington DC with regard to things like this. It's also the amount of swagger that the PACs have in US government. What ever happened to voting on common sense and doing what's right for a change.

Paypal banned online gambling transfers a long time ago. The credit card companies don't allow it either, because of too many chargebacks. So how do people get money to online poker sites? The money transfer services are themselves located offshore -- for example Neteller, the most popular one, is located in Canada. So you transfer money from your bank account to Neteller, then from Neteller to the poker site. There is talk of banning transfers between US banks and companies like Neteller, but the bank

Does our government have any constitutional right to outlaw gambling? And even if they do, doesn't the lottery exhibit gross hypocrisy?

No they don't have any right. This is simply the result of successful lobbying by the casinos. Since when does it matter if it is unconstitutional?

The same can be said of prostitution and many other illegal things.

You chose a bad example. Prostitution is not illegal in the US. Most states have made it illegal, but that is a different topic.

Really, our government should be protecting our rights, however trivial, unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

Yeah, if only here was a method we could use to elect people that would do that. Unfortunately, the majority of people no longer value freedom. This includes both democrats and republicans. Most people think it is perfectly fine to pass laws that take away the rights of others if other people are doing things they disapprove of. The last time I pointed out freedom for individuals to make choices I was told "you're afraid of the democratic process." Freedom is dead as cultural value. It lives on only for a tiny minority and as a buzzword for corrupt politicians trying to pass another law to remove more of it.

...The same can be said of prostitution...
our government should be protecting our rights... unless there is an obvious, and scientifically-supported public health/safety reason to do otherwise.

I think you left a hole in your arguement. And, no, a problem does not need to be pandemic to be a public health/safety concern. (To stretch it a bit further, also bear in mind the current-age/liberal definition of of the word "health". It has changed over the last few years in both medical and legal terms.)

Interstate commerce may give them the right by some interpretation. But by doing so, they deny me of my rights to do as I please with my money. That is certainly against the spirit of the constitution. It seem quit pink to tell me what I can do with my money. It's almost... communist?

You realize - if Antigua or anyone else - claims we are violating Free Trade and goes ahead with ignoring IP, we will have no choice but to assign them to the axis of evil and then invade.

Actually the article was interesting. I wondered what kind of mess the recent online gambling act would create. Oh, and I read, too, that it doesn't anywhere prohibit US firms from creating gambling sites aimed at foreign markets.

Oh, and I read, too, that it doesn't anywhere prohibit US firms from creating gambling sites aimed at foreign markets.

That's because the law already prohibits operating a game of chance within the borders of the various states besides Nevada. Nevada prohibits running an online gaming operation, though they do allow the subtly-different "mobile gaming" IIRC.

I'll bite. This troll was amusing.
You presume a lot there. It's akin to a teacher looking at a mistake a student has made and then pronouncing that student is utterly incapable of solving that problem ever again. The US has enough infantry to invade Antigua, of all places. And what nation can invade three nations and wage war against them currently ? Pretty high bar to set.

Of course its a dreadful troll, but...he has one thing right. You don't own a piece of earth until you have one of your guys with a rifle standing on it. You can inflict damage up to the limits of your arsenal; nuke it into a sheet of glass if you like; but without the guy and his rifle you don't own it.

General Shinseki told Rumsfeld he needed N guys with rifles to hold Iraq. Rumsfeld said you'll do it with N/3. Guess who was right?

While I don't support the war in Iraq, make no mistake that the US Military couldn't obliterate and occupy and country it really set its mind to. You might be occupying a sheet of glass after you nuked it but you're still occupying it;)The thing that has blown me away is how "soft" the military has become. And I'm not regurgitating some stupid Michael Savage/Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh talking point here.

For all intents and purposes, we've been "gentle" in Iraq. We have much more firepower at our disposal b

You do much more damage by pussy-footing around. I think if I knew that my "liberators" were going to dump a bunker buster on any location that was suspected of harboring a terrorist, I'd fucking make sure my house didn't have a terrorist in it and make sure everyone knew it.

Yes, I suppose that the USA could have learnt a great deal from Israels tremendous success in using such heavy-handed tactics. It certainly seems to be working for them.

It's the diet. Biscuits and gravy for breakfast (white flour and lard in a sauce of.....white flour and lard). A 24 oz T-Bone is the "ladies cut". Supersized everything. And, apparently no social stigma attached to being morbidly obese.

1) The US government clearly has the authority to make it illegal for a US citizen, inside the US to gamble, on or off the internet. Such laws already exist and have existed for MANY decades.

2) The act in question does not do that at all. Instead it makes it illegal for US credit card companies to send payments to Internet Gambling sites. Again, this is entirely legal for the US to do. It is not a free trade issue at all. In fact, it gives a HUGE advantage to non-US companies. Foreign Credit card companies are happy, they may break into the US market. If you get a European Credit Card, even when in the US, you may use your European Credit Card to pay gambling debts to Internet gambling sites, because the European Credit Card company is not subject to US laws.

3) The problem that Antigua is claiming is that the US does allow certain types of Internet gambling, and therefore under WTO agreements, it must allow all. The WTO has offered the US to either fully ban all internet gamblign of any kind, or to let all in. The US has not yet decided which to do. The WTO would be fine if the US banned everything.

4) The problem has NOTHING at all to do with the recently passed Act, the Antigua law suit was begun in 2003, the Act passed in 2006.

5) I think the idea that Antigua would violate patents and copyrights more than it already does is silly. The US has so many, many, ways, far short of violence to punish Antigua, such as cutting off ALL payments of any kind to any company based in Antigua, that it would stupid for Antigua to do this. Instead, they will do something smarter, like impose a Tax on US services.

1) The US government clearly has the authority to make it illegal for a US citizen, inside the US to gamble, on or off the internet. Such laws already exist and have existed for MANY decades.

No, actually they don't. The federal govt. would like you to THINK they do, but the reality is the US Govt cannot do so. The laws that existed prior to what got snuck into the safe port act have to do with interstate gambling. e.g.: Me, in Missouri, placing bets on the phone to a bookie in California. They can't pass a

I don't think you understand how credit cards work, let alone this law. The law makes it illegal for any company with OPERATIONS in the US to faciliate payments between US citizens and gambling sites offshore. This does not mean just US companies. For instance, my HSBC (Which is a UK company) credit card is also prohibited from doing this. Technically, if a company with zero US presence were to give me a credit card, they would be allowed to do as they wished--- but without a US presence, how would

"free trade infringement" - if it's being made illegal in general, then the same opportunities exist outside the US as do inside the US. Thus, "free trade."

Sortof like the Supreme Court case a couple years ago that said if a state allows wineries within the state to ship wine to indivual people, they have to allow other states to ship wine into the state to individual people.

The problems with this are regulation, taxation, and operation. You would not believe the hurdles that have to be gone through to set up a casino in the US. Any jurisdiction. Tribal casinos have the same issues as do those on "riverboats" and in Nevada.

An online casino has none of these. You can operate out of a basement somewhere. No rules, no oversight, no regulation. And, perhaps most importantly, no taxation. The rules the casinos have to follow in Las Vegas ensures two things: fair play and reporting every dime of "take" by the casino as well as every dime won by players. An offshore online casino is not going to be subject to these requirements.

Of course the "fair play" regulation is going to be waved about. As well it should. How the heck do you know anything about an online casino, anyway? Through their advertising? Player testamonials? Somehow I don't think that comes anywhere near reality.

And I doubt very much if you open the door to Internet gaming in general if you are going to be able to regulate it in any manner whatsoever. How would any government prevent some Ponzi-style operation from having a casino where everyone wins for the first couple of weeks? How long would you really need to keep it going? A month? Two? I guess it would depend on how greedy you were. I can't imagine any way of regulating such operations. And believe me, I would want to set up my very own online casino tomorrow if I could. Can't imagine a better way to bring in a lot of cash fast. Even a quasi-legitimate operation that returns 99.99% of all money bet would have incredible payoff to the operator.

An online casino has none of these. You can operate out of a basement somewhere. No rules, no oversight, no regulation.

You suffer from the misperception that entities opereating outside United States law operate outside all law. This is not the case. Many online casinos are based in England, which regulates them heavily to ensure fair play. The same is true of Antiguan casinos. If the government does not regulate (and therefore certify) the fairness of the casino, there will be significantly diminished

Just make it illegal where it's illegal in the United States. Where gambling is legal you can gamble online per the regulations of the community. There would probably be a requirement to show that your in a legalized zone and the type of gambling your doing is legal which would mean going to a physical location. It would probably also require local taxes to be paid; which is a partial reason why communities legalize gambling.You can then point and show that they have equal access to the gambling market t

They want less of the money leaving the country and more being spent here in the country. I think it has less to do with protecting "the public" and more about protecting particular interests in the states.

Gambling and betting services are the second-largest industry in Antigua and Barbuda, after tourism

If the U.S. effectively outlawed the second largest industry in my country but permitted it in its own, yeah, I'd be upset, too. Remember, gambling isn't illegal in the U.S. In fact, neither is online gambling. Betting on horse racing and online gambling within a state is protected under the law that was recently passed.

> Yea, And canada wasn't dumping government subsidised lumber in the US forcing mills to close shop in the 90's.

No it f'n wasn't and WTO agreed. So STFU. Imagine that, a country with a lot of trees couldn't possibly have a natural advantage. Na, they must be dumping. Nevermind the 75 cent dollar exchange advantage for the US for most of that time.

And you're surprised why the world despises the US? All high and mighty on ideals then breaks them when convenient. If you can't affort to lose on any one i

Antiguasoft Vista would be copyright infringement as well as being trademark and possibly patent infringement. Are they able to ignore copyright laws too?

If the US is found to be violating WTO rules with its gambling legislation and refuses to change them, Antigua is entitled to apply to the WTO for relief (i.e. punishment for the US). Generally this would take the form of tariffs on US products, but retaliation can also take the form of suspending IP protection for American goods. In this case, within th

Conversely, if it takes a gambling issue to end "Free Trade", so be it. Any real economist will tell you TANSTAAFL. If people would quit worshiping at the altar of Free Trade, we might actually collect sufficient fees at ports of entry to inspect more than 2 percent of all the cargo that comes in to this country. And no, I'm not talking about terrorists either. Anybody ever add up the economic impact of Chestnut blight, fruit flies, zebra mussels and all the other trade-borne pests? These things never appear on the balance sheet of any Free Trade advocate. We can ammortize that cost slowly, with just enough tarrif to fund a worthwhile inspection and regulation of import/export, or we can shift that cost away from the import/export companies towards the general population, and pay the unpredictable costs of ecological disasters. I prefer the former, but nobody cares, and nobody will listen.

Have you seen what zebra mussels are doing to the Great Lakes? They cause hugh problems in the lakes. But it's not like they were intentionally imported, instead they came with the ballast water. It's not really much different than many other invasive species such as kudzo along the Mississippi in the south.